About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


96 Wash. Univ. L. Rev. Online 1 (2018)

handle is hein.journals/wshuvylw96 and id is 1 raw text is: Washington University Law Review Online VOLUME 96 2018 APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN SANCHEZ- GOMEZ: A HARD CASE THAT SHOULD BE EASY BRYAN D. LAMMON TABLE OF CONTENTS I. WHY SANCHEZ-GmEZ IS A HARD CASE ............................................. 2 II. WHY SANCHEZ-GOMEZ SHOULD BE EASY ......................................... 7 III. THE RULEMAKING ALTERNATIVE .................................................. 10 CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 11 INTRODUCTION In 2013, the Southern District of California adopted a rule requiring all criminal defendants to appear in full restraints-hands cuffed and connected to a waist chain, feet shackled and chained together-for most non-jury proceedings.1 There were a few exceptions, including appearances at sentencing. And a defendant could ask the district court to have the shackles removed. Four defendants, represented by federal public defenders, challenged the shackling rule, contending that it violated their due process rights. After the district court rejected these objections, the defendants sought immediate appellate review. The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the shackling rule violated due process. In United States v. Sanchez- Gomez, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction to reach that holding.2 1. See United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 859 F.3d 649, 653-54 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). 2. See generally United States v. Sanchez Gomez, No. 17-312 (U.S. argued March 26, 2018). I